| 陈光诚的亲友 さんのプロフィール光诚快回家フォトブログリスト |  ツール  ヘルプ |
|
7月27日 莫之许: 记一次快乐的旅游——沂南之行一个让人悲哀但或许是不得不然的现实就是，我们确实只能一步一步地争取我们的自由与权利，而且我们还不得不与统治者一道争取我们的自由和权利——因为这自由和权利必然是普遍的自由和权利，是属于所有人的自由和权利。 ——作者题记 对一个盲人的超期羁押，不准保释，以及莫须有的起诉罪名，连同接二连三地发生阻扰律师取证、扣留其家人等践踏法制的行为，使得我决定和几个朋友一起赶往沂南县法院旁听开庭审理，没想到，这却成为我有生以来最快乐的一次旅游。 快乐理由一：原来没有黑社会 直到自己亲身经历之前，对于出手骚扰律师和志愿者的众多当地“暴徒”的身份究竟是什么，究竟是官方买通的黑社会还是官方的“自己人”，其实心中一直没有确切的答案。 这些年来，地方政权的黑社会倾向一直被广为关注，也确实发生过政府官员借黑社会之手实现个人目的的案件，但是，具体到陈光诚案件，由于其影响早已经超越了当地，受到国内外的广泛关注，在此情况下，地方当局如果有意识地利用现成的黑社会势力，必须得到上级的默许，而这在我看来是很难成立的，因为这将开创地方一级政权为政治目的而利用黑社会势力的先例，其性质之恶劣，难以言表。 所幸，我的这个疑问在沂南法院门口得到了回答。冲我们而来的数十名大汉，个个面无表情，不苟言笑，且毫无地痞流氓之匪气，更多的却是成竹在胸、有峙无恐的 “大气”，在冲突中分工明确，盯人准确，尤其令我难忘的是，当我死命抱住同伴，试图保护摄像机的时候，一个黄衫汉子从后一个锁喉，动作干净利落，直接将我放翻在地，显示了很强的专业素质。而在另一场冲突中，一个汉子用手死死掐住我的上臂，即令我动弹不得，所留下的指痕，居然经日不退，可见其功力多么深厚。后经旁边百姓指认，据称，这些人就是当地刑警，正与我的观感和判断相吻合，原来，当地政府毕竟没有胆量在众目睽睽之下和黑社会联手，而是自己假扮成了黑社会。 前几个月，针对当前的维权态势，我写了一篇叫做“更脏，但并不更坏”的文章，认为： “与包括高律师在内的许多人的看法不一样，我倒不认为官方目前对于异议人士的打压手段和力度超过了以往的时代，甚至到了所谓‘彻底流氓化’的程度，恰恰相反的是，我倒认为官方目前对异议人士的打压手段和力度前所未有的宽松，所谓‘彻底流氓化’不过是掩饰其日渐无力而刻意摆出的姿态而已。在并不久远的过去，政治异议的代价是被剥夺生命；在更为接近的过去，政治异议的代价是长时间的剥夺自由，而且都是公权力的公开使用和展示，如今所谓的限制和殴打，看上去很肮脏很流氓，但是，如果我们换一个角度，这表明的是官方已经怯于公开地频繁动用其依旧在握的公权力，而代之于遮遮掩掩地限制，这样的一种转变，只能称之为进步而不是堕落，只能称之为退让而不是欺人太甚。尽管从当事人的心理来看，这很让人难以接受，但从长时段的角度来看，中国社会要从肆无忌惮地动用公权力压制政治异议，过度到公权力中立于政治异议，可能难免要经历一个公权力偷偷摸摸地介入到对政治异议的管制的阶段，这样一个阶段，与以往赤裸裸地动用公权力相比，很不审美；而与期望中的不再有政治迫害相比，也很让人难以接受，但对于以民主自由为追求的人士来说，却不能不认识到，这是一个应当欢迎的变化。” 这一次，我算是亲身体验到了啥叫“遮遮掩掩”，又啥叫“偷偷摸摸”。于是，快乐理由之一就是，用自己的亲身经历验证了自己的判断，确实没有啥黑社会，只有权力“遮遮掩掩”，“偷偷摸摸”伪装而成的所谓黑社会；也确实是不再“肆无忌惮地动用公权力压制政治异议”了。 快乐理由二：原来没有暴徒 在离京出发之前，心里难免有些忐忑，脑海里不时闪动着这样的场景：来到一个人生地不熟的村口，突然涌上来一群面目狰狞之徒，一言不发即行动手，确实是一件颇让人觉得恐怖的事情。但是，就在东师古村村口，走近那一群人的瞬间，我突然发现，尽管有几个年轻人眼中有兴奋，有躁动，但更多的人更像是在完成一项任务，口中发出的声音，手上施加的动作，都更像是牵线木偶的举动，而不像是无理性的狂躁冲动。 一个搞笑的场景在这个情况下发生也就不奇怪了：就在一伙人合力把车掀起来的时候，我们的一个同伴开玩笑地说：“是不是真要掀啊，要不要请示一下你们的领导？”就像是听到了他的话一样，几秒钟之内，一个站在旁边的人说了：“别掀了。”于是，刚才还一同发喊要掀车的人，听话地把车又放回了原处。我注意到，光着身子站在当地的所有同伴，都有点忍不住好笑起来。 原来，所谓的“暴徒”，不过是地方当局所用来制造恐惧的工具，我们后来也得知，这群人当中，有县公安局的工会主席，也有当地的治保干部，比起上午的正规军来，这帮人训练不足，所以也有将邓永亮扯翻在地拳打脚踢之举，但总的来说，他们和上午的人一样，都是权力用来阻扰我们形使法定权利的工具，都是“遮遮掩掩地限制”的形式之一罢了。在我看来，不过是是一种赝品，很难给人以真正的恐惧，在这个夏日午后的阳光下，尽管我被这些所谓的“暴徒”追着打着，撕扯着我的衣服，推拉着我的身体，可我的内心其实没有丝毫的恐惧，而只想着如何把被撕烂的衣服藏起来作为证物——而我也确实成功地把它藏了起来，作为我这一次快乐旅游的最好纪念品。 快乐理由三：原来真不更坏 穿着印有陈光诚头像和“盲人、陈光诚、自由”字样的文化衫前往法院申请旁听，在我看来没有任何逾越的地方，尽管我也知道，这样的举动在试图严办陈光诚的官权眼里，是一种再明白不过的挑战，但是，最终却只能假手伪装成“村民”的几十双手，在一阵骚动中不由分说地撕扯掉它，却不得不容忍我们穿着它自由地行进在这一片土地上，却不得不容忍我们穿着它进出派出所，也不得不容忍我们穿着它自由地来——虽然自由地去，却是光着膀子了。 这表明，我们已经成功地将使用文化衫表达异议和异地声援，提升到了被允许的底线之上了。同样，在“更脏，但并不更坏”一文中，我曾经写道：“在这些底线之上的行为，尽管依旧不被允许，但官方已经迫于形势，不得不作出实际的退让，可以预期的是，由于这些行为长期不受到实际的追究，官方也很难在以后再加以追究或重新加以严管，也就是说，我们已经可以将这些底线之上的自由，看作是我们已经获得的成果！” 就在我们手持《中华人民共和国宪法》站在县法院门口合影的时候，我又看见了隔着一条街依旧打量着我们的那群人，我不知道他们在想什么，但我确信，我应该可以明白他们背后的权力在想什么。由于中国社会的日益开放和多元，权力本身早已经明白，那种全面直接地控制社会生活的手段已经并将彻底地失效，这也就是所谓法制社会之所以不得不被提出和推行的根本原因，但是，权力也更加明白，只要这个社会必须依据规则而统治，那么，制定规则的规则也就是民主规则的涌现，也同样不得不被提出。于是，权力所想要的，不过是继续垄断制定规则的权力，甚至为此不惜牺牲依据规则而统治这一本来有利于其自身的举措，所以表现为一种自相矛盾甚至神经分裂的执政行为。可是，青山遮不住，毕竟东流去，只要中国社会的开放和多元进程没有倒退逆转，只要统治者尚没有失去基于利益计算的理智，我相信，依据规则而统治将成为全社会的共识，并必然在此基础上迎来民主规则的奠定。 可以佐证我的判断的是，虽然是姗姗来迟，110 还是出警了，也接受了我的报案。我几乎可以肯定，为我做笔录的人和抢去摄象机的人本身就认识，因为他甚至都忘记了向我询问抢劫嫌疑犯的特征就准备让我签字，还是在被提醒后才例行公事地询问了一番。试想一下这是一个多么让人忍不住想笑的场景啊：询问的人不仅已经知道真实的情况是什么，而且也知道被询问人知道真实的情况是什么，而被询问人也知道询问人知道自己的想法是什么，但两个人却依旧要在哪里履行报案和笔录的游戏！而这一切的背后，仅仅是因为双方都还共同接受了一个必须接受的规则，所以才合力演出了这么一场看上去非常滑稽的游戏。在“更脏，但并不更坏”一文中，我也说过：“一个让人悲哀但或许是不得不然的现实就是，我们确实只能一步一步地争取我们的自由与权利，而且我们还不得不与统治者一道争取我们的自由和权利——因为这自由和权利必然是普遍的自由和权利，是属于所有人的自由和权利。”所以，我觉得，哪怕这一幕显得是如此滑稽，但这滑稽中恰恰隐含了这么一个事实，那就是规则意识已经逐步深入到了这个社会，以至于无论是暴力的施加者还是承受者，都需要对这一规则表示服从，这一事实本身就表明，规则已经开始取得超越对立双方的力量，而在我看来，这确实是一个真不更坏的现象。 由义正词严的镇压到滑稽可笑的恫吓，大概既是末日独裁的无奈，也是民间抗争的无奈。不必怀疑滑稽戏的终将收场，但收场的方式仍然喜剧，套用著名诗人爱略特的名句——末日独裁的坍塌，不是“轰”的一声，而是“嘘”的一声。 于是，带着快乐的三个理由，我们几个网友施施然离开了鲁西南，前往泉城，寻找在当地却素未谋面的网友，等待我们的，是美酒，是网友初次见面的典型场景——恭维与争论齐飞，八卦与主义一色。 7月25日 补记于北京 7月21日 图片展趁今天网络可以上传图片，把图片上传了。
一位年轻女孩网友说：
我们能做什么？我们什么也做不了，也付不起那样的代价去做。连有着合法身份的律师都受到这样的对待，让我如何去相信这样的法制社会？可是，难道我连愤怒的权利也要放弃吗？难道我连关注的目光都要吝啬吗？是的，不平的事太多了，我们是管不来也没有能力管的，可是，相信吧，今天的我们不发出声音，明天类似的不平就会发生在我们身上。 7月20日 Advocate for China’s Weak Runs Afoul of the PowerfulBy JOSEPH KAHN Published: July 20, 2006
BEIJING, July 19 — Only a few years ago, Chen Guangcheng, a blind man who taught himself the law, was hailed as a champion of peasant rights who symbolized China’s growing embrace of legal norms. Mr. Chen helped other people with disabilities avoid illegal fees and taxes. He forced a paper mill to stop spewing toxic chemicals into his village’s river. The authorities in his home province, Shandong, considered him a propaganda coup and broadcast clips from his wedding ceremony on television. All that changed last year, when he organized a rare class-action lawsuit against the local government for forcing peasants to have late-term abortions and be sterilized. Mr. Chen, 35, is now a symbol of something else: the tendency of Communist Party officials to use legal pretexts to crush dissent. On Thursday a court in Yinan County of Shandong Province is to hear charges that Mr. Chen destroyed public property and gathered a crowd to block traffic. His lawyers argue that he would have had trouble committing those crimes even if he could see. At the time they were said to have occurred, he was being guarded day and night by a team of local officials. His case is typical of efforts to punish lawyers, journalists and participants in environmental, health and religious groups who expose abuses or organize people in a manner officials consider threatening. Like Mr. Chen, they are often accused of fraud, illicit business practices or leaking state secrets, charges that do not reflect the political nature of their offenses. “Local officials made Chen’s house into a jail and turned him into a prisoner long before he faced any charges,” said Li Jinsong, one of his lawyers. “Then they concocted charges so they could send him to an actual jail.” The purview of Chinese law was broad enough to allow a self-taught peasant like Mr. Chen, dubbed a “barefoot lawyer,” to emerge from obscurity and help set some legal precedents in his home province. Since he got into trouble, Mr. Chen has relied on a network of scholars and lawyers in Beijing to defend him. But the law does not protect those who offend the powerful. Local Communist Party officials control prosecutors and judges in their domains, and they can use the legal system to carry out political persecutions. “China has advanced to the point that officials have to pay attention to the law,” said Teng Biao, a legal expert at the China University of Political Science and Law and a supporter of Mr. Chen. “But in some cases, they put a superficial legal cover on an essentially illegal action.” Officials in Shandong declined to answer questions about Mr. Chen, saying they could not discuss a pending court case. Nature dealt Mr. Chen his biggest challenge. He lost his sight after a childhood illness and did not attend school until he was 18. When he did go to school, he quickly encountered legal problems. China’s government exempts the blind from taxes and fees. But Mr. Chen often did not receive such benefits, according to relatives who asked to remain anonymous because the authorities have threatened to punish them for speaking to reporters. Determined to realize his legal rights, he studied law on his own, recruiting his four older brothers to read legal texts to him. In 1994 he went to Beijing to protest violations of laws protecting the handicapped. While there, he took action against the Beijing subway authority because attendants would not let him ride free. He got favorable media attention and free subway tokens after that. Rakishly handsome in his dark glasses, he became a popular legal crusader. He handled cases against the local sanitation bureau, the police and the bureau of commerce. A paper factory that spewed noxious waste into a river near his home was forced to suspend operations, making him a local hero. So when residents of his home village of Dongshigu were ensnared in a coercive birth control campaign last spring that appeared to violate national laws, they turned to Mr. Chen. Officials in the city of Linyi, which has a population of more than 10 million and contains Dongshigu, forced thousands of residents to undergo abortions or sterilization, according to people supporting Mr. Chen who cited local documents to support their claims.
Such tactics, common in the early days of China’s strict population control policies 25 years ago, are now illegal. The law says the authorities can levy fines only against people who exceed birth quotas. But forceful measures remain pervasive, because failure to reach population control targets can end an official’s prospects for promotion. Mr. Chen publicized the allegations as he prepared a class-action lawsuit. The problem received widespread attention in the international news media and was at least initially taken seriously in Beijing. The National Family Planning and Population Commission investigated. It reported last September on its Web site that it had uncovered abuses in Linyi and that it had taken steps to punish officials there. But that did not protect Mr. Chen, his family or his neighbors in Dongshigu from retaliation. When Mr. Chen visited Beijing in September to seek legal help, Linyi officials tracked him down, bundled him into a car and drove him 400 miles back home, Mr. Chen’s lawyers said. From then until his formal arrest in June, Mr. Chen was confined to his house or to a government-run hotel. His telephone line was cut. There is no provision in Chinese law for informal incarceration of this kind, his lawyers say. Mr. Chen’s relatives and neighbors in Dongshigu say the authorities stationed up to 70 uniformed and plainclothes police officers or hired thugs in the village. The police prevented Mr. Chen and his supporters from communicating with the outside world. In a dozen different encounters, they beat lawyers and journalists who tried to enter the village, lawyers involved in such encounters said. Supporters of Mr. Chen said that the local authorities had long intended to take legal action against him but that they had been stymied by the fact that he had not committed any crime. By June they at last announced the grounds for his arrest: destroying property and blocking traffic. The first charge refers to a confrontation in February between Dongshigu residents and the uniformed and plainclothes police officers guarding Mr. Chen in his home. Villagers pushed a police van and two government cars into a gully. They said they were enraged that the officers, described as idling away the hours outside Mr. Chen’s home, declined to make one of their cars available to take an ailing woman to the hospital during the Lunar New Year holiday. The indictment against Mr. Chen says he told people to damage the cars. Villagers say that he had no role in the clash and that he was not permitted to meet or talk to villagers at the time. The second charge stems from an incident in March. Mr. Chen was described as distraught that a friend had been beaten by local officials. He demanded to talk to someone in charge. In a change of tactics, his guards let him visit the village party headquarters and then hail a car on the main road to take him to the county center. Guards followed him to the road and helped him flag down cars, witnesses to the event said. They then took photographs of Mr. Chen in the roadway with cars stopped around him — which were used as evidence that he had blocked traffic, his lawyer said. Such charges might appear easy enough to contest in court. But Mr. Chen’s lawyers face formidable obstacles. Mr. Li and other lawyers helping Mr. Chen said they had received death threats when visiting Linyi, one of which Mr. Li recorded on his cellphone. He said the police had declined to investigate. Villagers say they have been warned not to appear as witnesses for Mr. Chen. When Mr. Li tried to enter the village early this month to take depositions, he said, he was surrounded by thugs. They told him to leave the area. When he refused, they pushed his car into a ditch and rolled it onto its roof. Mr. Li and a fellow lawyer were lightly injured. Much of the confrontation was captured surreptitiously on videotape by a supporter of Mr. Chen. “We can hardly have high expectations of a fair trial,” says Mr. Teng, the legal scholar, “when criminals are in charge of the law.” BBC今晚讨论：如何看中国维权人士面临审判?http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/ws/thread.jspa?threadID=1931&start=0 陈光诚数月来一直被中国当局软禁，因为他揭露说，他所在的山东临沂部分地区计划生育官员强迫当地妇女在妊娠晚期堕胎或实行强制绝育。 陈光诚因为在所在的村庄进行抗议，受到警方"涉嫌故意损害公共财物、聚众扰乱交通秩序罪"的指控。 您如何看中国维权人士面临审判？ 您怎么看中国基层维权人士的处境？普通百姓的维权活动能起什么作用吗？ 欢迎发表意见并留下联系电话参加本台7月20日北京时间晚上9：30互动空间直播讨论。 中国大陆听众欢迎拨打免费留言电话800 800 2222，留下意见或联系电话参加讨论。 发表时间: 2006-7-18 下午1:26 GMT 7月19日 7月19日律师报告7月19日 21：05 您好!我是李劲松律师.
我自上午九点半左右将要求会见陈光诚的材料交给沂南县看守所后,从下午两点半在看守所直等到五点才开始和陈光诚的会见,六点十分左右会见结束.
这次会见我主要是听取光诚就检察院提交法院的多份证人证词中相关事宜真实性的详细意见.光诚的健康状况及精神状态都还好.
在看守所等待会见光诚期间我于四点向沂南法院的于洋法官打电话问他明天的开庭是否真的取消了并要求法院今天出具一份"明天的庭审因检察院提出还需要补充证据而取消"的书面决定通知给我.于洋法官答复说不用给书面通知但他可保证明天绝对不会开庭.
我应该相信他相信沂南法院.但为慎重起见,加上会见时陈光诚告诉我他至今并没有接到过明天不开庭的通知.故我还是决定明天上午八点半准时到沂南法院.
由于发现今天一直有两辆无牌车在跟着我们且之前对我下手的流氓恶势力至今仍无一被缉捕归案.故我决定今晚即离开沂南县到临沂市住.我现住在临沂市的沂州宾馆. 与光诚同在明天光诚案就要开庭了，残疾人朋友、艾滋病感染者/患者、律师、维权人士、亲友纷纷赶往山东临沂，其中不乏妇女和儿童。朋友们将向法院申请旁听，倘若不被批准，也将穿着救援光诚的T-恤，默默地站在法院外，静候法庭审判的消息。
光诚，我们都和你在一起。
袁伟静穿着印有陈光诚照片的救援陈光诚的T-恤，感觉很温暖，她说：穿着T-恤，就感觉光诚和她在一起，感觉光诚依然在村里，和家人一起坚守着道义和尊严。
从昨日起，原计划去山东的胡佳被软禁在家。今天早上他走到楼下院子里，又一次被国保拦阻，其中一个国保是绑架胡佳41天的杨春滔。身穿印着光诚头像T-恤的胡佳抚着胸口说：我出不去了，我们的光诚兄弟怎么办？ China : Release "Barefoot Lawyer"China : Release "Barefoot Lawyer" Defendant's Lawyers Barred from Mounting a Defense
(New York, July 19, 2006) – Chinese authorities should immediately release Chen Guangcheng, a blind lawyer persecuted for exposing official abuses, Human Rights Watch said today. Since his arbitrary detention in August 2005, Chen has been subject to physical abuse by police, and local officials have repeatedly interfered with attempts by Chen's legal team to interview witnesses and gather evidence. Chen is due to be tried on July 20 for intent to damage public property and inciting others to join him to disrupt traffic.
"When Chen tried to make proper use of China's legal system, the response wasn't due process," said Sophie Richardson , deputy director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch. "It was house arrest, physical abuse, and then 'disappearance' by local authorities. His case is a textbook example of how little the rule of law really means in China."
In March 2005, Chen learned from villagers that officials in Linyi, a city in Shandong province, had subjected thousands of people trying to evade restrictive population control laws to late-term forced abortions, midnight raids, beatings and compulsory sterilization. Chen then began his own investigation into the allegations. In June 2005, he filed a class-action lawsuit, and then traveled to Beijing to discuss the case with legal scholars, lawyers and foreign journalists. Soon after, the lawsuit was rejected.
On August 12, 2005, local officials imprisoned Chen and his immediate family in their home and shut off all outside communication. They were detained there for seven months. Chen did manage to escape in September, but was apprehended in Beijing and returned to Linyi. When he tried again to escape in October, local authorities failed to protect him against beatings by civilians apparently working in connection with the police to help enforce his isolation. On March 11, 2006, Yinan county police officers "disappeared" Chen for three months. It was not until June 11, 2006, that officials acknowledged he had been formally detained in the Yinan County Detention Center. On June 21, the Yinan County People's Procuratorate approved Chen's arrest.
That same day, Chen's lawyers, Li Jinsong and Zhang Lihui, were able to visit him, but from then on, authorities escalated the pressure to deny access to defense witnesses and materials for all the lawyers and activists involved. On June 22, police officers took lawyer Li in for questioning. Unknown assailants beat three other lawyers defending villagers jailed for supporting Chen. Police officers first looked on as the cameras of the villagers' lawyers were smashed, then took them in for questioning. When Li Jinsong and Li Subin, another member of Chen's legal team, tried to visit Chen's wife on June 23, they were stopped and beaten by guards. The following day, all the lawyers involved returned to Beijing. Li Jinsong and Li Subin tried returning to Shandong on June 27, only to be harassed again while the police again stood by. Some 20 men overturned the lawyers' car and police took Li Jinsong in for questioning once again.
"Chen's story – his disappearance, letting unknown assailants beat him and his legal team, and holding him for months without any judicial process – spotlights the failings of the Chinese judiciary," said Richardson. " China should free Chen and welcome his exposure of official abuses, instead of continuing to persecute him."
For further information, please contact: In New York, Mickey Spiegel: +1-212-216-1229 In London, Brad Adams: +44-20-7713-2767
CHRONOLOGY March 2005: Chen learns of family planning abuses in Linyi city, Shandong province and begins his own investigation. June 2005: After Chen organizes a class-action lawsuit, he travels to Beijing to consult with legal scholars and lawyers and to meet with the press. The suit was filed, only to be rejected. Chen's findings are revealed on the Internet and through the foreign press. August 12, 2005 : Chen and family are imprisoned in their own home. Twenty to 300 officials and civilians who appear to work in concert with the police maintain round the clock watch. September 6, 2005: Chen manages to escape to Beijing, where he is apprehended by Linyi city officials and threatened with a long prison term if he does not stop his activism. When he refuses, he is returned to effective house arrest in Dongshigu, his home village. September 2005: Lawyers and legal experts who had earlier posted Chen's findings on the Internet organize to defend him. September 19, 2005: The National Population and Family Planning Commission (NPFPC), responding to the concerns raised about Linyi, reports that "illegal family planning practices that violate people's legal rights and interests do exist. Those who are responsible have been dismissed from duty. Some are under investigation, some are in detention." October 4, 2005: Lawyers Li Fangping and Li Subin and law lecturer Xu Zhiyong attempt to visit Chen and to negotiate with local officials for an end to the enforced isolation. After two of the three were beaten, police interrogate all three, then escort them back to Beijing the following day. October 24, 2005 : Local officials beat Chen to prevent him from leaving his house to meet with two Beijing scholars, then refuse to permit him to seek medical assistance. March 11, 2006 : Chen is "disappeared" from his home. His family is told nothing about his whereabouts for three months. June 11, 2006: Yinan county officials acknowledge that they have Chen in custody; his formal detention is dated June 10. June 18, 2006 : An interrogator warns Chen that there is nothing abnormal "if someone dies in the detention center." June 19, 2006 : Family, lawyers, legal experts and activist friends cancel a press conference in Beijing after security officers prevent would-be participants from leaving their homes. On the same day, some 10 men, who did not identify themselves, use force to remove Chen's 70-year-old mother, his 3-year old son, and his older brother from legal expert Teng Biao's Beijing home, and return them to their homes in Dongshigu village, Shandong. University officials tell two Beijing law professors – Teng Biao from the Chinese University of Politics and Law and Xu Zhiyong from Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications – to stay away from the case. June 21, 2006 : The Yinan County People's Procuratorate approves Chen's arrest. Chen's lawyers, Li Jinsong and Zhang Lihui, are able to visit him, but prison officials interfere with their ability to interview Chen. For example, they refuse to allow him to respond to certain questions. June 22, 2006: Local police officers take lawyer Li Jinsong in for questioning. Local assailants beat three lawyers defending villagers jailed for supporting Chen. Police officers look on as the lawyers' cameras are smashed, then take the three in for questioning. June 23, 2006: Lawyers Li Jinsong and Li Subin try to visit Chen's wife, but are stopped and beaten by guards. June 24, 2006 : All lawyers return to Beijing. An unidentified caller warns lawyer Li Jinsong that he is "seeking death." June 27, 2006: Li Jinsong and Li Subin return to Shandong on June 27, only to be harassed by assailants while the police again stand by. Some 20 men overturn the lawyers' car and smash their cameras. Police take Li Jinsong in for questioning again. July 7, 2006: Li Jinsong announces Chen's trial is scheduled for July 17, 2006. The trial is subsequently postponed until July 20. 7月18日 陈光诚案7月20日开庭律师正在准备开庭事项。许志永在山东进一步调查取证。
所有村民受到警告，并且要签下保证书按上手印，证明自己没有看到两次给光诚定罪的现场。
令人担忧的是，另外三个村民仍然被拘留，需要更多的律师为村民辩护。
袁伟静穿着印有陈光诚照片的救援陈光诚的T-恤，感觉很温暖，她说：穿着T-恤，就感觉光诚和她在一起，感觉光诚依然在村里，和家人一起坚守着道义和尊严。 律师取证报告这两天当地政府已经如临大敌，通往村子的各路口都已封锁。我大概弄清了他们封锁村子的原因，因为陈光诚涉嫌罪名的两起冲突，警察已经挨个威胁在现场的人不能说出真相，而村民的愤怒憋在心里，一旦律师进村村民摆脱恐惧，会纷纷为光诚作证。
有一些细节让人感动，春节那天，这个总共四百多人的小山村，大半的人去看望光诚，在看守们的监视下，光诚家屋子里和院子里都站满了村民。他们说，每当吃自来水就想起了光诚，村民们感激他。
有一些细节让人痛心，村里看守突然大量增加，一个气喘吁吁跑来报信的老人，他的眼神充满恐惧。在一个山坡上的小屋里，我突然想起，我是谁？我在干什么？想起了人民战争这个词，想起了反抗侵略的游击队的历史镜头。在东师古村，人民与官吏势同水火。
许志永 2006-7-17 晚23：49 7月14日 一个政府对一个盲人的战争2006 年4月 30日 ，美国《时代》周刊评出本年度全球最具影响力的各领域100 人 ，其中有五位华人，我国媒体在报道这次评选结果时提到了其中四位——温家宝、马 军、李安和黄光裕，却有意忽略了一个名字——陈guang诚，山东 linyi贫困山村里一 个为健全人权利和尊严而抗争的盲人。 国内媒体不提他的名字是有原因的，自从2005年他揭露地方政府野蛮违法之后，这 个生活在偏远山村双目失明的法律工作者就成了当地政府眼中的 "敏感人士"。2005年8 月他被软禁，2006年3月11日被沂南县公安局带走， 6月11日被刑事拘留，6月21日被批 准逮捕。等待这位良心盲人的可能是审判和牢狱。 贫穷山村里的瞎孩子 1971年冬天，陈guang诚出生于山东省沂南县双堠镇东师古村——一个坐落在孟良 崮脚下的贫穷山村。小guang 诚5个月大的时候，有一天夜里突然发高烧，哭了一夜， 家人第二天送他到当地医院检查——可以想象那里的医疗条件，医院没有查出病因，给 他吃了一些退烧药。从此以后，小guang诚的眼睛蒙上了厚厚的阴影。家人带着guang诚 四处看病也没有效果，五岁时在沂水医院做了一次失败的手术，之后一年 guang诚的双 眼彻底失明了。 童年是痛苦的。这个世界在小guang诚的眼前渐渐变成永远的黑暗，他不可能像小 伙伴一样自由地玩耍。田野、小河、房屋、树木对一个双目失明的孩子来说都可能是可 怕的陷阱，有一天在田野里他的右眼被枝丫戳穿了。 童年也是快乐的。双目失明并没有改变小guang诚是村里最顽皮的孩子。他熟悉村 里每一个角落，熟悉田野里每一棵树木，他用双手感知春暖花开的季节。他最会掏鸟窝 ——让树下的孩子用竹竿绑着锅盖盖住鸟窝的口，他就循着小鸟的叫声爬到树上，一 掏一个准。他是村里最会捞鱼的小孩——他看不到鱼，但他知道鱼在哪里，什么样的石 头下会有鱼。 小时候guang诚没有机会读书，他帮父母在田间劳动。幸运的是父亲从小就给他念 《水浒》、《三国》等英雄传奇故事，虽然生活在偏僻的山村，他的心是开阔的。 直到十八岁那一年，guang诚才在linyi的一个盲人小学开始读一年级。尽管家境贫 寒，聪明而又刻苦的他坚持学业， 2000年陈guang诚从南京中医药大学毕业，被分配在 县城中医院。本来他可能和很多盲人一样，以推拿和中医为业，但陈guang诚选择了另 一条道路，他回到了家乡的山村。 2005年夏天当我的朋友滕彪、郭玉闪他们来到东师古村的时候，他们还能听到村民 们讲述这个盲人孩子的传奇故事，表达对他的感激。可是当10月我和李方平律师、李苏 滨律师来到这个村庄的时候，我们感受到的却是恐惧，这个瞎孩子因为坚守良知给这个 村庄带来了恐惧。 你为这个社会做了什么 还在读小学的时候，陈guang诚开始与法律有缘。他从老师那里知道了《残疾人保 障法》，里面有一条规定残疾人免交税费，他回家告诉父亲，不用再交他自己的那份税 费了，父亲拿着法律条文找到村委会和乡里，但没有用。 1996年，陈 guang诚所在镇政府强行收取他的"三提五统"等税费高达 368元，在青 岛盲校读书的陈guang诚上访到县里市里无效后，利用寒假直接从青岛到北京上访，最 终得到上级的帮助取消了不合理的税费。1998年，陈 guang诚在学校读到《半月谈》， 发现上面有规定不允许搞" 两田制"，当年夏天，他又一次到北京上访，终止了村里的" 两田制"。 两次上访的经历得罪了村镇政府，却燃起了他对法律的信心。到大学毕业的时候， 陈 guang诚已经学了很多法律知识，并且他已经用法律武器捍卫了很多乡亲们的合法权 益。 陈guang诚有一个自幼高度智残的邻居，县残联虽然为他办理了《残疾人证》，但 十多年来镇里年年都收他的税费。税费改革时，陈 guang诚严正地和镇干部交涉，说不 能再收他的税费，"你们要强行收取的话，咱们就法庭上见。"镇干部最后让步了。 乡里计划生育委员会在办准生证时，一定要夫妻俩花350元买一种药，也说不明白 药效。许多夫妻买了以后就扔了。更多夫妻因为买不起这个药就没办出生证。结果小埠 村里一个头胎怀孕六个月的合法孕妇，没有出生证，就要被管计划生育的人抓住做人流 ，陈 guang诚赶到怒喝他们：你们这是犯法！六个月的孩子打掉是杀人知不知道。计生 委的人溜走了。 双堠镇邻近一个乡镇有户六口人家，两位七旬老人皆盲，儿子儿媳为健全人，生下 的两个孩子都得了婴儿瘫。就这样一个家庭，每年照常缴纳法律明令禁止的残疾人的税 费。陈guang 诚获悉后，伸出了援助之手。把当地政府告上了法庭。案子开庭审理时， "linyi市三区七县（共三区九县）的盲人都来了，座无虚席。最终，镇政府退还了已经 收取的不合理税费。" 流过村子的河水污染了，到了夏天散发出一股臭味，有村民突然犯怪病死亡，还有 村民孩子考上大学，体检却不合格。"一定与河水有关。 "陈guang诚想，他很快在村民 的帮助下取证，联合两个村的村支书，收集了一河两岸代表4万个村民36个村庄的签名 ，要求关掉污染的造纸厂，并把污染厂推向被告席。厂里停工治污后，陈guang诚又申 请了英国联邦基金 20多万扶贫资金，为村里修了163米的深水井。那些日子，村里像过 节一样，每家动员起来挖土，修自家门口的水路，仅仅花费了政府工程开价的三分之 一。 到2003年，陈guang诚已经是附近乡村著名的" 陈律师"。四处求助的百姓络绎不绝 ，他家的电话成了当地的法律咨询热线。这一年，他入选"国际访问者计划"，被邀请到 美国访问了十几个城市；这一年，他被政府评为linyi市"十大新闻人物 "，他的结婚仪 式在linyi电视台转播，他是linyi的骄傲。 但是，陈guang诚最终并没有成为一个政府树立的 "模范人物" ，因为他始终没有 改变自己的立场——"必须有人为那些沉默的老百姓争取权利"。2003年底，陈guang 诚 帮助开小铺面的村民刘长春一家把地税局告上了法庭；2004 年3月，在陈guang诚的指 点下，300名村民联名要求罢免财务账目不清的村委会，陈guang诚因此受到了人身威胁 ；2005年，因为计划生育运动中地方政府野蛮执法，陈 guang 诚挺身而出，他终于成 了受难者。 很多人对陈guang诚的努力表示过怀疑，甚至和他一起做残疾人维权事业的妻子袁 伟静也曾经抱怨" 这么多残疾人的困苦，都是社会问题，光靠我们俩能改变什么？什么 也改变不了。"但陈guang诚的话震撼了她，"很多很多人都有你这种想法，说同样的话 ，都在讲这个社会如何如何不好，多么多么黑暗。可是，你有没有想过，你为这个社会 做了什么？哪怕只说一句公道话，干一件公道事；哪怕把这个社会不好的地方，改变一 点点，尽一点点力也好。假如人人都能这样，那我们的社会肯定能改变。 " 2005年的劫难 2005年春季，因为计划生育工作排名全省倒数第一，linyi市发动了一场"计划生育 运动" ，他们采取了"连坐"、"办学习班"等方式抓捕关押殴打了很多无辜的村民，他们 用棍棒迫使妇女做俯卧撑，迫使60多岁的亲兄妹互相殴打对方的脸，苍山县有的村民甚 至被殴打致死。 面对野蛮暴力和乡亲们的遭遇，陈guang诚怒不可遏。他来到北京寻求帮助。李 建、滕彪、郭玉闪等一批有良知学者和律师先后到 linyi调查，通过互联网公布了调查 结果，在国内各大网站引起了巨大反响。 9月初，国家计生委派人到linyi调查。9月19日，国家计生委新闻发言人、政法司 司长于学军就 linyi 计划生育有关情况的初步调查结果发表谈话，承认linyi市个别县 乡有关人员在开展计划生育工作中，确实存在违法行政、侵害公民合法权益的行为。并 称，有关责任人已"被免职、被拘留或立案侦查"。 几乎与网络传播和国家计生委介入的同时，陈guang诚的家受到地方政府的监控。 8 月底陈guang诚逃离了被监控的村庄，辗转上海、南京等地来到北京。但是，在北京 也没有任何安全保障。2005年9月6日，陈guang诚在北京一个朋友居住的小区里被一群 人抓住塞进一辆汽车，倔强的他拼命挣扎，被当地镇政府官员掐着脖子强行按在汽车后 排座位底下。这群人把他带回 linyi关在一个宾馆里，陈guang诚绝食绝水，一天以后 他们把陈guang诚放回家，但从此以后，陈guang诚彻底失去了人身自由。 数十个政府雇来的人日夜围堵在陈guang诚家四周以及通往东师古村的各个路口， 他们切断了guang 诚家的电话和网络，在他家安装了手机屏蔽仪器。陈guang诚的妻子 袁伟静和他们出生几个月的女儿也失去了人身自由。他们威胁陈 guang诚的家人不准对 外讲guang诚的事，他们恐吓guang诚的哥哥读高三的女儿说陈guang 诚是反革命，如果 不配合工作组的工作就不能参加高考。他们威胁村民不能和陈guang诚来往，不能接受 记者的采访。 10月4日，我们作为朋友去看望陈guang诚，感受到了整个东师古村充满了恐怖气 氛。沿205 国道从蒙阴向沂南方向路过孟良崮向前大约两公里路西侧就是通往东师古村 的岔路口，那里有两辆车四个人看守，当时我一个人穿当地村民的衣服骑自行车才得以 避开看守。往村庄方向走大约100米，沂水的桥上也有两三个人把守，再往前大约100米 东师古村村口有三辆车七八个人看守。陈guang诚家门口更是有十个人看守，他们分两 排坐在小板凳上。这些人大都是政府官员以及他们雇来的其他村庄的地痞流氓，他们的 工作就是一天 24小时限制陈guang诚的人身自由。 地方政府官员很快发现了我，把我堵在胡同里，警车和地方政府的增援看守马上过 来。村民们也纷纷涌上来，痛斥那些官员和看守们。那天，在村民们的帮助下， guang 诚一度冲出了他家门口的包围，但他遭到了看守的殴打，腿上受了伤，牙齿流着 血。那天，我和李方平律师也遭到了地方政府雇用的看守的殴打。 两个罪名 2006年2月6日，村民陈华和看守们发生了冲突，原因是陈华家和陈guang诚家只有 一墙之隔，看守们的遮阳伞就设在陈华家门前，陈华让他们春节期间搬走。冲突中看守 们殴打了陈华，并把陈华带走了。陈华的奶奶到村部被村民称为 "看望陈 guang诚指挥 部"的地方去找，指挥部里的人不理，老人家一气之下休克了。村民们央求看守 guang 诚的人能够开车把老人家送往医院，因为他们有三辆车在这里。可是他们拒绝了，村民 们看到他们见死不救非常生气，人越聚越多。有人喊了一声 "把他们的车给砸了！"， 群情激奋，大家动手把车玻璃砸了，推到了沟里。 混乱中，陈guang诚冲出了包围，躲到村民陈光雨家，但他们很快就把手机屏蔽仪 搬到了陈光雨家。 3 月11日，看守们突然在路上拦住陈光雨殴打。guang诚在村民的帮 助下冲出院子来到公路边要去县城找领导说理，双方的冲突阻止了公路车辆通行。政府 有关人员说，陈guang诚"煽动村民阻碍了交通三个多小时" ，村民说，是政府官员趁机 阻拦了过往车辆。那天到底发生了什么我们并不十分确定。 地方政府根据这两件事情给陈guang诚定了两个罪名。从3月11 日起，陈guang诚被 警察带走了。一开始他们给guang诚家里一个"传唤通知"，后来却不承认他们抓了陈 guang诚。2006 年5月8日，律师们去看望陈guang诚，地方政府和公安部门一本正经地 说，他们没有抓陈guang诚，不知道他在哪里。2006年6月 11日《沂蒙晚报》发布了一 条短消息，称"陈guang诚的行为已涉嫌故意毁坏财物罪和聚众扰乱交通秩序罪，沂南县 公安局于 2006年6月10日将陈 guang诚依法刑事拘留。"6月11日，陈guang诚的妻子袁 伟静接到沂南县公安局的刑事拘留通知书，6月21日，陈guang 诚被批准逮捕。 对于一些为维护合法权益奋起抗争村民领袖来说，这两个罪名常常强加到他们身 上。但是，把这两个罪名加到一个已经被非法软禁半年的盲人身上，无论如何都是荒诞 的。村民们砸车的前提是这些车辆是非法限制陈 guang诚人身自由的犯罪工具，以及政 府见死不救的渎职行为。砸车行为是对政府官员犯罪行为和渎职行为的反抗，如果说" 毁坏财物"行为构成了犯罪，罪魁祸首也应该是当地政府。 关于3月11日的事件，我们至今也无法做出详细调查，linyi 政府一直阻止律师们 调查真相。我们怀疑这是一个阴谋。如果这一天陈 guang诚冲上了公路，这个曾经被限 制人身自由半年多时间的盲人，为什么偏偏在这个时刻又不受控制恢复自由了呢？我们 不得不怀疑是看守们趁机堵了路给陈 guang诚制造罪名，这种说法已经得到部分村民的 验证。我们对陈guang诚罪名怀疑还基于我们的经验，我们的律师在 linyi已经多次被 殴打，每一次政府组织的流氓无故拦截殴打律师之后，公安局总是会说我们打了人。 即使陈guang诚和村民们真的堵了道路，他们也是在对法律绝望的情形中表达一种 愤怒的声音，从情节上看根本构不成犯罪。更何况，当时有那么多政府官员在场，他们 当时在干什么？如果他们没有故意设圈套堵路的话，他们至少也是渎职。考虑到导致此 次交通堵赛的直接原因 ——地方政府长期非法限制公民人身自由，如果这次堵路构成 犯罪， linyi政府有关负责人应负主要责任。 一场无耻与良心的战争 软禁、"失踪"、乃至定罪还都是表面上的，实际上，linyi 政府针对陈guang诚的 打击报复远远不止这些。 他们针对陈guang诚的道德品质进行妖魔化。祗毁一个道德上几乎无可挑剔的盲人 是很困难的，但linyi 政府几乎做到了。他们组织无耻者炮制《盲人陈guang诚的真面 目》的文章诽谤陈 guang诚，说他"与国家和人民为敌"，从事"间谍活动" ，是"西方在 中国的内线 "，"属于汉奸"，以此减低人们对陈guang诚的同情和关注。当然，正如很 多造谣诽谤文章一样，这篇文章的作者不敢署真名。 他们清楚，最可怕的是真相。传统媒体因为恐惧不敢触及。他们派大量的人通过给 某些网络管理腐败官员行贿的方式封锁网络，制止真相的传播。他们通过贿赂把无耻的 诽谤文章挂在新华网论坛上，却不准别人回复。我们为陈 guang诚建立的很多网站被关 闭了，与此同时，linyi市委书记李群在美国当市长助理的消息悄悄地出现在很多bbs 上。 他们竭力把陈guang诚变成一个政治符号。想把一个坚守良知为民请命的残疾人树 立成中央政府政治上的" 敌人"是很困难的，但linyi政府几乎做到了。陈guang诚曾经 到美国访问，曾经作为《时代》周刊的封面人物，陈guang诚也拥有了包括知名的中国 法律专家科恩教授在内的一些国际朋友。这些在2003 年之前还是作为一个残疾人取得 的令人骄傲的成就，但因为他得罪了地方政府，到2005年都成了他"里通外国"的罪状。 2005年10月我和李方平律师被困在沂南县公安局的时候从警察那里得知，他们正在 搜集陈guang诚" 泄露国家机密"的罪证。我当即告诉负责此案的谢立伟警官"如果你们 以此给陈guang诚定罪的话，那将是一个天大的笑话"。是啊，一个生活在偏远山村里的 盲人，除了告诉全世界他的乡亲遭遇的苦难之外，他还能泄露什么" 国家机密"？后来 ，这个罪名不了了之。 可以想象，2005年底陈guang诚被《亚洲周刊》评为" 维权律师"之一，2006年3月 陈guang诚宣布绝食抗议非法暴力和非法拘禁，2006年4月被《时代》周刊评为全球最有 影响力的 100人之一，这些都可能成为地方政府向上级汇报陈guang诚政治上"罪状"的 证据。"敌对势力 "、" 政治"或"稳定"是地方贪官污吏要挟中央政府的一贯伎俩。 为了阻止真相传播，他们组织"工作组"到北京绑架老人和孩子。6 月19日傍晚，正 在滕彪家的陈guang诚的母亲和孩子准备出去散步，刚下楼就遭到十多个便衣的绑架。 他们突然冲上来猛然抓住老人和孩子，掐着72岁老人的脖子把她塞进汽车，三岁的孩子 一直哇哇大哭。滕彪冲下来拼命阻挡绑架老人和孩子的车辆，但他被绑架者和110 警察 推倒在地。老人和孩子名义上是被送到了陈guang诚的四哥家，但实际上他们失去了人 身自由，很多便衣看管他们，甚至在6月21日老人生病呕吐了一天看守们也不准去医院 看病。 他们组织流氓恐吓殴打正常执业的律师。就在上周，李劲松、李苏滨、张立辉等六 位律师先后到沂南县为陈guang诚以及其他村民提供法律援助。李劲松他们到沂南的第 二天在吃饭的时候后，六个不明身份的人多次闯进来气势汹汹责难他们，律师们忍耐了 侮辱。不久李劲松律师又收到死亡威胁电话，实际上，李劲松律师的手机只有沂南县四 位警察知道。 6月21日晚，陈guang诚的母亲已经生病一天的消息传到了李劲松律师那里，晚上 11 点多李劲松给四位警察发了一条短信，告诉他们"拿出你们作为人子人女的天良，立 即允许guang诚家人送guang诚的妈妈尽快去医院诊治！" 当夜，沂南县有关部门送陈guang诚的母亲去了医院。但就是这条短信，linyi 地 方政府以为找到了律师的罪状。6月22日，沂南县公安局的警察正式告诉李劲松律师"根 据治安管理处罚法，你因为发淫秽侮辱短信打扰别人生活，我们可以立即拘留你"。下 午，他们把李劲松强行带到公安局，并出示了已经填好的拘留通知书，准备拘留他四 天。后来由于害怕舆论压力，最终他们不了了之。 这究竟是为什么 在这样的年代，我们的国家常常发生一些令人费解的事情，但陈 guang诚遭遇的苦 难几乎是我见过的最令人不可思议的。我不是一个爱找麻烦的人，只有当不公正非常极 端非常邪恶的时候，我才会拍案而起，但陈 guang诚遭遇的苦难确实让我以及千千万万 有良知的中国人拍案而起了。我们帮助陈guang诚，正如李劲松律师说的那样，是因为" 陈guang诚的遭遇伤及了我的天良"，我们要为人性的尊严而抗争。 陈guang诚事件中的是非善恶是如此鲜明——一边是高高在上的谎言、暴力、无耻 成性的贪官污吏，甚至是一个强大的政府，另一边是受迫害的这样一家人 ——残疾 人、妇女、老人和孩子。我至今也不明白，是什么力量非要把一个盲人送进监狱？他们 为什么要这样没完没了？难道把一个良心盲人送进监狱就能掩盖住什么，就能维护我们 国家的尊严么？ 遗憾的是，在北京，因为帮助陈guang诚，我和滕彪等很多朋友都受到了很大压 力。我曾经愤怒地告诉北京的警察，难道非要把一个地方贪官污吏针对一个盲人的战争 变成一个国家对一个盲人的战争吗？我们的政府怎能如此变态？！不是陈 guang诚，也 不是我们这一群法律人给国家制造麻烦，是linyi的贪官污吏们，是他们正在把自己发 起的针对一个盲人的战争变成一个国家对一个盲人的战争。不要告诉我陈guang诚被人 利用，不要告诉我营救陈 guang诚有什么阴谋，对陈 guang诚的迫害突破了人性的底线 ，只要是"人"，只要还有一点点人性，知道了陈 guang诚的遭遇都会伸出援助之手！ 我曾经以为他们这样做是因为愚蠢，因为愚蠢他们才犯下了一连串的错误。推行计 划生育虽然有难度，但他们也不必那样野蛮暴力，计生工作倒数第一可能影响自己的前 程，但也不必制造那么多愤怒和哀怨。一个盲人举报了违法行为政府改了就好，如果没 有问题了，他怎么可能没完没了地揭露你？即使找到了法律上的理由把一个盲人逮捕了 ，他的 72岁的母亲和3岁的孩子犯了什么法，凭什么把他们也拘禁起来？本来政府可以 趁春节期间悄悄找陈guang诚谈判也就了结了，为什么要这样没完没了？ 2005年10月4日，我和李方平律师、李苏滨律师第一次来到linyi。当时，我们是怀 着善良的愿望去的，我们希望 linyi地方政府能够释放陈guang诚，同时我们也可以劝 说陈guang诚作出让步，希望双方能够妥协。但是，我们却遭到地方政府雇用的便衣有 组织的殴打。2006年5月，魏汝久等律师带着良好的愿望想劝说陈 guang诚保持沉默， 想帮助linyi政府解决问题，他们去linyi没有作任何声张，但是，却被当地公安局威胁 要拘留他，每一个律师都被胁迫下做了笔录。我们本来都想帮助他们解决问题，可是， 他们怎么能这样？ 但是，他们未必是因为愚蠢。很可能的是，他们以为自己太强大了，难道不是吗？ 他们后台很硬，能调动北京的110帮他们绑架老人和孩子；他们很有关系，能到处贿赂 删除批评他们的文章，一个盲人的名字很快成了百度被屏蔽的词，成了关天的敏感词， 成了千千万网络管理员删除的对象；他们很有能量，能组织大批不明身份的人长年累月 一天 24小时看管一个盲人的家；他们不在乎法律，能公然殴打律师，抢劫律师的摄像 机，掀翻律师的汽车；他们很懂"政治"，几乎已经成功地把整个国家机器裹挟进了这场 无耻的战争。难道不是吗？他们太强大了，他们敢于发动一场针对残疾人、老人、妇女 和孩子的战争，敢于发动一场针对人性的战争。 许志永2006-6-28（感谢杨子云等朋友帮助） 7月11日 第四批律师从山东返回李劲松承办陈光诚案最新工作报告：（发稿时，律师正在回来的路上。） 今天上午10:00至11:00,我一个人会见到了陈光诚.光诚的健康状况及精神状态看来比上次要好.
今晚18:27分,我坐京g12106号北京高客返京至泰安段花园饭店(在中央储备粮泰安直属库附近)吃饭时,发觉有一黑色桑塔纳及另一面包车竟然从沂南一直跟踪着我们到这里!我真有点担心临沂流氓恶势力这次是由于"知道光诚今天托我一定要向中央政府领导报告临沂相关贪官污吏长期残酷报复迫害他的行为",故想将魔手伸入北京来阻止我对我下手灭口.
为防万一,我现决定公告下列我拟代光诚控诉的人和事:
一、今天光诚明确指控除几十个被雇自去九月起至今非法长期守在光诚家门口及村口暴力限制光诚一家行动自由的流氓地痞外,对他有过非法侵权言行的还有:临沂市副市长兼临沂市公安局局长刘杰(音)、双喉镇司法干部李先干、副书记夏发田(音)、副镇长赵峰(音)、副书记张健(音)、沂南县公安局治安大队副市长兼临沂市公安局局长刘杰(音)、双喉镇司法干部李先干、副书记夏发田(音)、副镇长赵峰(音)、副书记张健(音)、沂南县公安局治安大队长刘善元(音)!
二、今年4月2日前他是被非法拘禁在沂南县维多利亚度假村.4月2曰后至六月被正式送进沂南看守所之前,他是被数十个他一时说不清名字的镇和公安局工作人员非法拘禁在民警培训中心!
三、3月12日至3月14曰,沂南警员对他实施酷刑三天不让他睡觉.他为此曾绝食绝水抗议这些警察败类丧天良的暴行!如果,我今晚或明天真被灭口了.则烦请您:代我向胡锦涛主席曾庆红副主席温家宝总理反映上列事项!
并此,深深祝福:您及我们的所有亲人健康!平安!开心欢度每一天! 补充10日工作报告：
7月5日 袁伟静父母被跟踪监视袁伟静的亲身父母，也就是陈光诚的岳父母，生活在山东临沂市邻沭县（离沂南县有一百多公里）的两位老人（父亲是即将退休的教师，母亲是当地农民），被沂南县政法委的车辆以及相关人员密切跟踪监视。
袁伟静没有自由，无法回娘家探望老人，心中担忧。
另外，继汉涛之后，由于派出所压力，协助袁伟静救援陈光诚的又一位友人被房东驱逐，目前正在寻找新的租住居所。 7月4日 report to un
COMMUNICATION ALLEGING ARBITRARY ARREST AND DETENTION OF CHEN GUANGCHENG, A HUMAN RIGHTS DEFENDER AND CITIZEN OF THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA (Original submission: March 9, 2006. Most recently updated on June 27, 2006)
I. IDENTITY
1. Family name: Chen 2. Given name: Guangcheng (Chinese name: 陈光诚) 3. Sex: Male 4. Birth date or age (at the time of detention): born 1971 5. Nationality/Nationalities: People’s Republic of China 6. (a) Identity document (if any): Personal ID Card (b) Issued by: Zibo City Public Security Bureau, Shandong Province (山东省淄博市公安局) (c) On (date): (d) No.: 370328711112261 7. Profession and/or activity (if believed to be relevant to the arrest/detention): human rights activist, “barefoot lawyer” 8. Address of usual residence:
II. Arrest
First arrest:
1. Date of arrest: Sept. 6, 2005
2. Place of arrest (as detailed as possible):
Detained in Beijing and taken under guard to home village in Linyi, Shandong Province.
In the afternoon of Sept. 6, Chen Guangcheng was detained at the home of a friend in Beijing by six men who said they were public security officers from Shandong. The men shoved Chen into a car. He was held overnight in a hotel, where he said the head of the Linyi Public Security Bureau and the city’s deputy mayor came to see him in the morning. “The main purpose was to threaten me. [The PSB head] said, ‘You have revealed news information to foreign media and have been suspected of violating Article 111 of Chinese criminal law: illegally providing intelligence to foreign countries, for which the maximum sentence is life in prison. The minimum you can get is 5-10 years.’” Chen was held overnight at a hotel on the way from Beijing to Shandong, and began a hunger strike when he was detained.
3. Forces who carried out the arrest or are believed to have carried it out:
Public security officials from Shandong Province
4. Did they show a warrant or other decision by a public authority?
No
5. Authority who issued the warrant or decision:
NA 6. Relevant legislation applied (if known): NA
Second arrest:
1. Date of arrest: Sept. 23, 2005, 2:50pm, released the following morning into house arrest
2. Place of arrest (as detailed as possible):
Arrested at home. Home was searched until 10pm that night.
3. Forces who carried out the arrest or are believed to have carried it out:
Public security officials
4. Did they show a warrant or other decision by a public authority? No.
5. Authority who issued the warrant or decision: NA 6. Relevant legislation applied (if known): NA
Third arrest:
1. Date of arrest: March 11, 2006 2. Place of arrest: at his home village, Yinan County, Linyi City, Guangdong Province 3. Force carried out the arrest: Public security officials 4. Did they show a warrant: No 5. Relevant legislation applied:
Formal arrest, with official notification:
1. Date: June 21, 2006, 2. Place: Yinan County Detention Center 3. Force carried out the arrest: Yinan Public Security Bureau, Linyi City, Shandong Province 4. Did they show a warrant: They issued a warrant - No. 193 [2006], stating that the Yinan County People’s Procuratorate approved that the county PSB carry out the arrest of Chen Guangcheng on suspicion of “intentional destruction of property” and “gathering a crowd and disturbing traffic order.” 5. Relevant legislation applied: PRC Criminal Code, PRC Procedural Law
III. Detention
1. Date of detention:
Under house arrest from Aug. 12, 2005 to March 11, 2006, detained incommunicado on March 11, 2006; formally detained on suspicion of “gathering crowds to obstruct traffic” and “destructing property” on June 10, 2006.
2. Duration of detention (if not known, probable duration):
The maximum time allowed for the measure residential surveillance 监视居住 is six months, which expired. His formal detention order came on June 10, 2006, after he was taken into custody for 3 months.
3. Forces holding the detainee under custody: House arrest is enforced by security guards paid on a daily rate by village and township officials and Yinan County Public Security Bureau (PSB). Yinan PSB statement calls them “militia” but they reportedly do not meet the official criteria for militia members 4. Places of detention (indicate any transfer and present place of detention):
Under house arrest at: East Shigu Village, Shuanghou Township, Yinan County, Linyi City, Shandong Province; detained at Yinan County Detention Center.
5. Authorities that ordered the detention: According to villagers, Chen’s house arrest was overseen by various local government and Chinese Communist Party officials, including the Shuanghou Township mayor and party secretary, and the Yinan County party school president, party secretary and party office director. On March 11, he was detained by Yinan County police. On June 10, 2006, the Yinan County police acknowledged he was detained at the Yinan Detention Center.
6. Reasons for the detention imputed by the authorities: That Mr. Chen “fabricated” information about violence inflicted on rural people around Linyi City to enforce the population control policies and achieve quotas for reducing birth rates in the area. On some occasions, Chen and his family have been told that releasing this information constituted a breach of laws governing protection of state secrets. When he protested beating of a villager by security guards, he was taken into custody, Three months later, on June 10, a formal notice was sent to his wise, alleging he was detained for “deliberate destruction of property” and “gathering a crowd to obstruct traffic.”
7. Relevant legislation applied (if known): Mr. Chen is said to be held under “residential surveillance” (监视居住). This is a form of house arrest that can be applied by Public Security, Procuratorates, and Courts under the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL, Art.s 50 and 51), including in cases where authorities have insufficient evidence to charge a person with an offense but are investigating that person for criminal responsibility, or if the penalty for the alleged offense would be minor. The maximum period allowable for such detention is six months (CPL, Art. 58).
At no time has Mr. Chen been shown a warrant ordering him to be put under residential surveillance, nor has he officially been given any reasons for such a measure to be imposed on him. According to the Regulations on Procedures of the Public Security Organs for Dealing with Criminal Cases (below, MPS Regulations, issued by the Ministry of Public Security in 1998), if such a measure is to be applied to a suspect, a residential surveillance decision must be issued by public security organs at county level or above and this document must be shown to the suspect, who must sign or put his mark on it (Art.s 95 and 96).
His June 10, 2006, formal detention order came after Chen was held for more than six months under house arrest and illegally detained for more than 90 days by the Yinan Police with no respect for legal procedure at all
IV. Describe the circumstances of the arrest and/or the detention and indicate precise reasons why you consider the arrest or detention to be arbitrary We believe that Chen Guangcheng is being detained illegally to retaliate against him for his work in documenting and exposing violence used to enforce population control policies in Linyi City and in seeking to provide legal assistance to villagers who were to bring a lawsuit against local authorities regarding these abuses.
Chen, who is a self-taught lawyer, blind since early childhood due to a high fever, has a long history of campaigning for the rights of farmers and the disabled. He assisted villagers in solving drinking water pollution problems when he was attending Nanjing Chinese Medicine University in 2000. He created and ran the “Rights Defense Project for the Disabled” under the auspices of the Chinese Legal Studies Association between 2000 and 2001. Since 1996, he has provided free legal consultation to farmers and the disabled in rural areas. In 2003, he was sponsored by the “International Visitors Project” to visit the US. In 2004, he ran a “Citizen Awareness and Law for the Disabled Project” supported by the US National Endowment for Democracy and the Monica Fund.
Starting in April 2005, Chen and his wife, Yuan Weijing, began to investigate villagers’ claims that Linyi City authorities were employing extensive violence in implementing government birth quotas, and later to put together briefs for lawsuits against officials involved. Their work, and that of activists and lawyers who visited the area to assist in documenting the abuses and in providing legal advice to villagers who wished to take legal action, represented the first-known concerted domestic effort to challenge the use of violence in the enforcement of China’s population policy. The first report on the subject was made public through the Citizens Rights Defense Network (gongmin weiquan wang) on June 10, 2005.
It seems clear that the violence in Linyi was part of a concerted campaign to meet the area’s assigned population targets. In July 2004, the Linyi City Party Committee and government had issued a document on strengthening population and fertility control work. Violent measures reportedly began to be used in some districts of Linyi City by the end of that year. In mid-February 2005, Linyi City government reissued the July 2004 document, in a move seen as encouraging the use of force to meet population control targets. According to Linyi residents, in March 2005 local authorities began forcing parents of two children to be sterilized and women pregnant with a third child to undergo abortions. Officials detained family members of those couples who fled, beat them and held them hostage. There has been official confirmation of the abuses in Linyi: on Sept. 19, 2005, an official of the National Population and Family Planning Commission of China said that their investigation had found that there had been violations of law and policy in Linyi that had infringed the rights of citizens, and that as a consequence, some officials had been dismissed, while some were in detention and facing investigation for criminal responsibility.
Lawsuits filed by four villagers who suffered violent treatment in this campaign, Du Dejiang, Liu Benxia, Han Yandong and Hu Bingmei, were due to be heard on October 10, 11 and 14 in the Yinan County People’s Court. But on October 10, the court announced that the hearings would be postponed. Other villagers who had been planning to bring suit have pulled out after being harassed, threatened, or bribed. Police also allegedly forced some villagers to testify against Chen Guangcheng, saying that he fabricated the reports of abuses. Chen’s wife has said that local officials had warned her that her husband’s life would be in danger unless he abandoned the lawsuit.
As a result of their work on the lawsuit, Chen and Yuan were put under house arrest on August 12. On August 25, Chen evaded police surrounding his village and went to Shanghai and Nanjing, then to Beijing, to seek help from lawyers. In Beijing, friends arranged for him to meet foreign journalists, diplomats, and international legal experts, to discuss the lawsuits.
On September 6, he was detained in Beijing by police from Shandong Province, who took him back to Linyi and released him into house arrest the following day. Since then, his house has reportedly been surrounded by up to 30 men and many cars. On Sept. 9, his landline and mobile phone services were cut off, and his computer seized.
On October 4, law lecturer Xu Zhiyong and lawyers Li Fangping and Li Subin attempted to visit Chen and negotiate with local officials to have his house arrest lifted. The lawyers were stopped on their way to the house. Chen reportedly managed to leave his house and spoke with them briefly, but was then forcibly taken back. When he resisted, he was beaten up by men surrounding his house. The lawyers tried to go to Chen’s house, but they were stopped and Xu Zhiyong and Li Fangping were beaten up, then all three were taken to Shuanghou Township Police Station where they were interrogated until the following morning. They were told that the case now involved “state secrets” and escorted back to Beijing.
On October 24, two other Beijing scholars and friends of Chen Guangcheng went to visit him. As Chen ran out to greet them, he was stopped and beaten by more than 20 men stationed outside. The visitors were quickly escorted away. Authorities did not release Chen even after the UN Special Rapporteur, Manfred Nowak, called his relatives from Beijing during Nowak’s visit in late November 2005.
Mr. Chen’s wife, Yuan Weijing, has also been prevented from leaving the house, and was beaten when she came out to greet visitors on December 27, 2005. Over the past few months, a number of villagers who have been seeking to help Chen and his family or protesting against his continued detention have been detained, and have clashed with the “militia” imposing his house arrest. Some were subject to criminal detention orders (under which the police may hold a person without charge for up to 15 days) and some remain in detention.
On June 20, 2006, when Chen Guangcheng’s mother, who is 72 years old, arrived in Beijing (with his three-year old child) to have a press conference about Chen Guangcheng’s situation, they were abducted by police from Shandong and brought back to Linyi. The next day, Chen’s mother fell seriously ill, but the men guarding Chen’s house did not permit her to go to the hospital.
V. Indicate internal steps, including domestic remedies, taken especially with the legal and administrative authorities, particularly for the purpose of establishing the detention and, as appropriate, their results or the reasons why such steps or remedies were ineffective or why they were not taken After Chen Guangcheng’s abduction in Beijing, Chen’s lawyer Teng Biao called the police to report Chen’s disappearance, but has never received any response to his report. Since Mr. Chen has not been given any document regarding his detention, it is difficult for him to mount any legal challenge to it. Also, he has been prevented from meeting with his lawyers, although the MPS Regulations require that such meetings be permitted for a person under residential surveillance (Art. 97).
Several times lawyers representing Chen have attempted to meet him, and to discuss with the authorities the lifting of Chen’s house arrest. On October 4, 2005, law lecturer Xu Zhiyong and lawyers Li Fangping and Li Subin attempted to visit Chen at his home and negotiate with local officials to have his house arrest lifted. The lawyers were stopped on their way to the house: Chen reportedly managed to leave his house and speak with them briefly, but was then forcibly taken back to the house. The lawyers then met briefly with local authorities. After the meeting they tried once more to go to Chen’s house, but they were stopped on the way and reportedly beaten up by a 30-strong group. They were then taken to a police station where they were reportedly interrogated until the next day, and told that the case now involved "state secrets". The following day they were escorted back to Beijing.
On October 30, 2005, Mr. Chen’s lawyer Teng Biao filed a lawsuit on his behalf in the People’s Court of Yinan County, charging two Shuanghou Township officials with intentional injury for their involvement in beating him outside his house on October 24 when friends came to visit Chen and Yuan and their new baby, born in July. The two officials allegedly headed a group of more than 20 militia men who beat Chen with fists and sticks, knocked him down several times and kicked him. Mr. Chen was not able to see a doctor to verify his injuries because the militia surrounding his house rejected his requests to seek medical attention, but there were a number of eye witnesses on the scene. So far the court has ignored Chen’s suit. CRD sent statements expressing concern about Chen’s case to the Ministry of Justice in Beijing. One statement, sent on February 14, 2006, received the following e-mail response: “According to the current division of labor between government departments, the matter involved in your communication is not within the responsibilities of the Ministry of Justice. We suggest you submit your information to the relevant [government] departments.”
Lawyers and family were unable to find out where Chen Guangcheng was detained or for what reason. Police denied any knowledge of the person.
After the family was informed of Chen Guangcheng’s formal detention on June 10, Mr. Chen’s new lawyers, Mr. Li Jinsong （李劲松）, Zhang Lihui (张立辉), were able to visit Chen Guangcheng at the Yinan Detention Center on June 21. This was the first time in three months that Mr. Chen was allowed a visit by lawyers. His family has not been allowed to visit. His wife has been under house arrest. When the lawyers asked him where he was detained during those three months, prison guards interrupted the discussion, preventing Chen Guangcheng from answering the question.
On June 22, Li Jinsong was taken into police custody for questioning. Also on June 22, Huang Kaiguo （黄开国）, Li Kechang （李 克昌）and Chen Hai （程海）, lawyers for the three villagers who have been detained since March 12, 2006 for their activities in support of Chen Guangcheng, were harassed by local police. They were followed by cars and beaten by thugs in the streets while police looked on. Their cameras were grabbed and smashed. The attackers were clearly identified by an eyewitness as such because they were driving cars without a license plate.[1] When they reported to the police, they were taken into the police station for questioning and detained there for hours.
On June 23, two lawyers, Li Jinsong and Li Subin (李苏滨) tried to visit Mr. Chen’s wife, Yuan Weijin, and provide legal council on matters related to obtaining medical parole for Mr. Chen. They were stopped in front of Mr. Chen’s house and beaten by guards who were there enforcing the residential detention of Ms. Yuan.
On June 24, all six lawyers who went to Linyi County to provide legal council and handle procedures in the Chen Guangcheng and three other villagers’ cases returned to Beijing. Due to the harassment they encountered, they were unable to carry out their work.
On June 27, lawyers Li Jinsong and Li Subin went back to Linyi, trying to meet with Mr. Chen’s wife in order to obtain a copy of the arrest warrant, convey to her Mr. Chen’s condition at the Detention Center, and also get her signature in order to process legal papers to apply for medical parole for Mr. Chen. Again, they were harassed by thugs in the village while police refused to intervene. More than twenty men turned over their car and smashed their cameras. Mr. Li Jinsong was then taken to the police station for questioning.
(Omitted here for their protection)
Date: June 27, 2006
__________ A hardcopy of this communication was delivered to the Working Group on arbitrary detention, the Special Representative on Human Rights Defenders, and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations Office at Geneva, on June 21 and 23, 2006. This is an updated electronic version.
[1] In China, vehicles without license plates are commonly recognized as belonging to the government. 任意拘留逮捕人权捍卫者陈光诚，中国政府再次显示其国际人权承偌之空洞"维权网"公布
2006 年7 月3 日
任意拘留逮捕人权捍卫者陈光诚，中国政府再次显示其国际人权承偌之空洞 - 民间人士诉诸联合国人权机构，要求启动紧急行动机制， 争取陈光诚早获自由、并敦请特派专员访华
2006 年6 月27 日，来自中国民间的维权人士和 律师向联合国有关人权机构提出关于人权捍卫者陈光诚被任意羁押的申诉（注一）。 这些机构包括：联合国( 反对) 任意拘留问题工作组、联合国总秘书长保护人权捍卫者特派代表、联合国"法官和律师的独立性问题"特派报告员 、联合国人权高级专员办公室。 这份申诉报告指出，根据联合国任意拘留问题工作组采用的国际人权法标准（即：1 、羁押的非法性；2 、羁押的原因是当事人行使了他/ 她的基本自由人权如言论表达、集会、结社、游行等； 3 、所启动的法律程序（如审判）不公正等三项标准。（注二）），有充分的证据证明：对陈光诚长期进行非法监视居住、限制行动自由、拘留，以及沂南公安局最近正式批准的逮捕，均属于任意羁押。临沂有关当局长期关押陈光诚的目的显然是为了打击报复、阻止他所从事的人权活动。陈光诚，男，35岁，1996 年至今，在家人和朋友的支持下，一直在为农村残疾人士和农民提供免费的法律
咨询服务。2005 年初，他开始调查山东临沂地方政府在计划生育政策落实中 的违法行为，为遭受非法侵害的村民提供法律援助，因此遭到
非法软禁和关押。自2005年 8月11日起，他被软禁在家，9月6日， 陈辗转逃至北京后被山东地方官员绑架回乡继续软禁；2006年3月 11日被
沂南县公安局带走。2006年6月11日，被刑事拘留。其妻 亦被软禁至今。
官方的这些行政和司法作为严重侵犯了陈光诚本人作为"倡导人权、努力保护和实现人权"的人权捍卫者的权利（ 参见联大《（保护） 人权捍卫者国际公约》第一条）；官方对陈光诚和其他被拘留村 民的代理律师的持续骚扰和打压，严重干涉了律师正常行使职责 的独立性、威胁到他们的人身安全，践踏了陈光诚等人的得到公正辩护的权利（ 参见《公民权利和政治权利国际盟约》第十四条（3 ：乙、丁））。（注三）
申报人要求"任意拘留问题工作组"启动"紧急行动"程序、争取陈光诚尽快获释。 我们不仅有充分的证据证明对陈光诚的羁押纯属"任意羁押"，而且认为继续羁押将危及他的健康和人身安全。我们要求工作组向中国外交部提出紧急诉诸，责成中国政府立即释放陈光诚、并采取适当措施保障他的健康和生命权。（注四）
申报人要求保护人权捍卫者特派代表尽快提请中国官方关注此案并立即结束一切侵犯人权捍卫者陈光诚基本权利的政府作为。鉴于目前中国维权人士普遍面临日益艰险的工作和生存环境，不断受到官方的各种骚扰以至监禁，无法正常开展推进和保护人权的工作、行使他们捍卫人权的权利， 我们借此机会 敦请人权卫士保护特别代表吉拉利女士（ Hina Jilani ）访华，就中国人权捍卫者面临的艰难处境进行实地考察、并向联大提出报告。（注五）
同时，鉴于人权 律师目前普遍面临来自官方的各种压制、骚扰、威胁，无法独立地行使为侵权受害人提供法律咨询和庭审辩护的职责，尤其是陈光诚的代理律师，一再受到临沂地方官员的阻截、殴打，多次无理被警方传唤、拘留，在这种情况下，申报人特此要求联合国"法官和律师的独立性问题"特派报告员德斯普伊先生（ Leandro Despouy）紧急呼吁中国政府对此种情况做出解释，并立即采取有效措施保障人权律师行使职权的独立性以及他们的自由和人身安全。（注六）
一般情况下，这些人权机构将会尽快去函向中国外交部询问申诉报告里举报的情况。中国官方在今年5 月争取当选人权理事会成员时，既然公开"自愿保证"将尽力与联合国人权机构合作、按照最高人权标准去推动保护所有中国公民的人权（注七），中国官方因此就有必要就此作出令人满意的解答，才有助于为其经常自诩的"人权进步" 提供佐证、并从头开始建立必要的国家信誉。无论从何种角度，陈光诚案显而易见的违法性、程序的不公正性、以及报复压制陈光诚行使捍卫人权的权利的做法，都凸显了中国有关当局违背联合国人权标准，实在难以自圆其说。能够证明中国政府真有诚意要去推动人权保护的是这个政府在人权问题上的所作所为。为此，中国政府应该落实其国际人权签约国的责任以及今年五月参选人权理事会时的承诺。而官方能否与联合国有关人权机构合作、立即纠正违反国际人权标准的做法、尽快释放陈光诚，则是对政府诚意的一次关键性检验。
附件： 1 ．"关于人权捍卫者陈光诚被任意羁押向联合国有关人权机构的申诉"（英文） 2 ．供指称有任意逮捕或拘留事件的人士填写的问题单样本 （中文）
-----------------------------------------------
注释：
（注一） 2006年3月，"维权网"协助关注此案的民间人士和律师向联合国人权机构首次提出申诉。（见维权网" 陈光诚逾期软禁案国际人权法救助" http://crd-net.org/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=453 ） 这次提交的是一份补充申诉材料，由关注此案的民间人士和律师作了进一步更新、核实。这份补充申诉已经在联合国人权理事会于日内瓦举行的首次会议期间，由来自公民社会的民间人士亲自递交给上述人权机构。这里附件发布的申诉报告全文（英文）搜集了到 6月27日为止的事态进展情况。
（注 二）见联合国人权高专办公室《概况介绍第26号：任意拘留问题 工作组》http://www.ohchr.org/english/about/publications/docs/fs26_c.pdf
（注三）中国政府1998 年签署了该公约、但尚未批准加入这个公约，可是，按照国际惯例，签约国政府的所作所为不能与已签署条约背道而驰。否则，签署与否毫无差别。当然，只有中国有关立法机构批准加入这个条约后，国家才必须严格按照这个条约去修改、补充国内法规。
（注四）有关联合国"（反对）任意羁押工作组"的使命、职责和操作程序，请见《概况介绍第 26号：任意拘留问题工作组》，见注二。
（注五）有关联大总秘书长人权卫士保护情况特派代表的使命、职责和操作程序，请见 http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/defenders/training.htm 联合国人权高专编辑的《概况介绍第29号：人权捍卫者— 保护捍卫人权的权利》，英文版已发行， 中文版正在准备之中。 （注六）有关联合国"法官和律师的独立性问题特派报告员"的使命和职能以及操作程序，请见 Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers，http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/judiciary/index.htm（注七）中国政府今年五月在参选联合国人权理事会时，向联大提交的"自愿承偌 " （Voluntary Pledge）声称"中国政府立志去推进和保护中国人民的人权和基本自由"。"中国政府尊重人权的普世性，支持联合国在推进和保护人权方面发挥重大作用，并已经接受二十二个国际人权条文 ……。 中国已经签署了《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》，并正在修改刑法、民法和行政诉讼法，加强司法改革，以便为早日批准加入 [这个公约]创造条件"。（本译文非官方提供，以英文原版为准： "The Chinese Government is committed to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of the Chinese people." "The Chinese Government respects the universality of human rights and supports the UN in playing an important role in the protection and promotion of human rights. China has acceded to 22 international human rights instruments, … Having signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), China is now in the process of amending its Criminal, Civil and Administrative Procedure Laws and deepening judicial reform to create conditions for ratification at an early date." ）
更多信息，请联系：
滕彪 北京华一 律师事务所 电话： 86-13241918519
李健 公民维权网 电话：86-411-87530776
万延海 北京爱知行研究所 电话： 86-10-88114625
夏浓 维权网 电话： 852 8125 7553 7月1日 房东被迫驱逐汉涛北京公民教育联盟成员机构"健康环境公众教育促进会"负责人汉涛，计划周四筹办关注国内法治环境健康发展专题讨论会讨论分析陈光诚的案件，周三晚上后半夜被国保审讯，租住的家被国保以"消防检查"的名义察看，会议场所被迫取消。
周四朋友们联系不上汉涛。
周五汉涛的电话接通，短信告知房东被国保施压，迫使汉涛搬离住所。目前汉涛无处居住。如果有朋友能提供三十平米以内一居或平房短期借住或租住皆可。
我从2002年开始认识汉涛，他给我留下了深刻的印象，他像一个孩子，纯洁、善良、温和，还有一点点传统。为了理想，他创办了"健康环境公众教育促进会"，为了人类有一个更健康、更美好的生存环境努力。 |
|
|
